ooh just had to reply to this comment! Milton would say people are free to choose what they want, although I agree that more people that knew about original and logical thought it would be beneficial to all of us. You could say RUclips algorithm doesn't help in some ways. What you could do like Milton would is persuade others to learn about this series! What a great 10 volume series to teach us about the last 150 years of economic history and what has worked and what has not. Have a nice day.
38:50 Lady, Mercedes Benz was way ahead of the curve in safety, innovation and technology and set the bar for implementing those engineering standards in today’s vehicles, all without government mandates in a free market. American cars at that time couldn’t hold a candle to their German counterparts.
The younger woman is wrong on a lot but she's sharp and bold. It made her an enjoyable counterpoint. The uptight librarian exemplifies the condescending woke liberal "we know better than the individual " thinking.
The amount of regulations is astronmincal in todays world. No more free choice. One dumb example is requiring a mixing valve on all water heaters. ( a pet peeve for me.) Milton would get a heart attsck everyday in todays world.
Keynes had a very pathological mind set. Inject money into the economy and take money out of it as required. Pure manipulation and the recipe for an artificial economy.
This Robert Crandal (Bookings Institute) talks like a lobbyst (which he really is!), how is he expecting someone to believe him? Some other people in the panel though not agreeing with Friedman seem really to believe in their cause, while Crandal thinks and acts like a politician. Very untrustworthy fellow.
38:06 She is stuck in crystallized intelligence built up around the rules she thinks ought or ought not to be followed, without thinking through why those rules exist in the first place and what makes a rule desirable to follow or not. SAD
When did the Government come up with safety laws? After analyzing the accident data? Does is sound intuitive enough? Does Government use intuition? Was this a roadway issue, traffic control or poor car testing issue? Unfortunately it is hard to say, until they come up with stricter laws. You know when you live in times, where your Government says, if you drink water, you are at your own risk? Speaking of safety. And now they have a new regulation where the water cannot have a lead? Like lead paint? #Clean air impact
So that data from customers and patients matters! There is only so many times we can rediscover things! Shall we come up with international norms to export our product, like food? Are we responsible for the people outside of America experiencing symptoms? We are responsible if someone gets food poisoning in US. You can always file a lawsuit. Basically, the logic says, if it is safe for me to eat, you should be able to export it! Ever compared US chicken with other countries organic chicken? The issue is, we want a better food! There is only so much one can delay on that. When do you know when things are really bad, is when Walnut sales are down and you end up with surplus. And so mental health matters! Exchanging walnuts with drugs? You know the thing added iodine into the salt and now we don't have to worry about food? #Oranges
Pipes don't filter? Basically add a filter, you will worry about the infrastructure later. And the opposite is true to. You don't have to change the whole thing to add a filter. So, separate states shall not wait until the Federal Government comes up with new safety law. Each state can have its own safety laws.
You do realize that all of the people calling the Consumer Product Safety Board are calling that agency AFTER a product on the market has performed in a less than safe way, right? Is it reasonable to think that these products would be safer WITHOUT standards set forth by the government? And what would be the course of redress otherwise? For every consumer to hire an attorney and seek relief under tort law? Ridiculous! Friedman says these regulations make bicycles more expensive and narrow selection. How much MORE expensive? A nickel? A dollar? Is it not worth a reasonable added cost to purchase a product that has had to meet some pre-determined safety standards? Would you feel safe putting your kid on such a bike? Would you rather have your kid on a safe bike or take your chances knowing you could always sue an unsafe manufacturer? Friedman also says these safety regulations prevent more manufacturers from entering the market. Doesn’t that suggest that those prevented from entering the market would be companies that CAN’T/WON’T manufacture their products to prescribed safety standards? How is that a bad thing?
I'll answer your questions in order: That's disputable. Yes. Free market certifiers increasing the market value of the product for those who value safety would fill that void. The main redress would be to leave negative reviews and ruin that company's reputation. Might not be satisfying for the consumer, but would greatly disincentive bad behaviour by the company. Ofc legal avenues would exist for major issues. Probably a lot more than you think. Not only is government doing testing inefficiently on taxpayer money, but the delays hamper the business. And then there's often licencing costs and 'compliance fees' and other extortion by the regulator on the business. Rest of questions in the paragraph: It's not the role of a 3rd party to make those value judgements on behalf of the consumer. Few points on the 2nd paragraph: 1st: Prescribed standards limits innovation to within a strict boundary. 2nd: The standards act as a barrier to entry for a new manufacturers. Be aware that familiarising yourself with the standards and ensuring that your product meets them carries a considerable cost for a new entrant into a market. That's even assuming that the standards are genuine and aren't developed for the purpose of keeping out competition. This barrier exists even if the new product is completely safe. 3rd: It's a bad thing because it limits competition. This leads to higher prices and inferior products, including inferior safety. 4th: Why not have cheap, unsafe products? Those who value safety highly won't buy them, and people spending less on this product means they have more to spend on other things. Who other than the consumer should make the determination of what is more valuable? Indeed, why divorce safety from product quality? IMO government regulators are bad because: 1. They have a tendency towards corruption. Look up the term 'political entrepreneur' (or 'rent seeker'). 2. Their incentives aren't aligned with the consumers. This is addressed well in the video. They pursue self interest. Even assuming benevolence, how could they act in the consumer's interests when each consumer has different values? 3. They are horribly inefficient, like just about anything government does. Government projects are actually disincentivised from being efficient. 4. They often socialise the costs onto people who won't benefit. Why should a person who never rides bikes pay for bike safety regulation? 5. The regulators powers is often used by employees to enforce their own personal opinions, which are often not in the public interest. Think about what kind of person would go to work at a government regulator. It is certainly not a random selection of the population. The road to hell is very well paved with the good intentions of incompetent moral busy-bodies.
I agree with milton but take airbags in cars for example, what about taxis and family members? Shouldnt the government, as the only entity that has the data - can make a benefit-loss analysis , regard to the other passengers lives that are being taken because lack of airbags?
Landlord renting a house. Which houses are safe and which aren't? Is this something that Government should audit? Absolutely. If you live in a house where it fell apart, the landlord has to provide some liability, such as safe to reside inside the premises. Now imagine a carbon monoxide leak, water pipes that are old and unsafe, furnace that is too old and does not comply with New Government safety regulation, that requires you to use a furnace with filter. So now you have to change to furnace and with that renovate the place. Would the landlord repair things for the tenants or make sure that it is safe to rent, and take the liability? No! Speak from yourself only! #Chicago#New York#Sacrificium
I guess your children did not know his price? The price of the economist? #bees. Li Quant Yu was an example that if you want something to be done, do it yourself! Organization is everything and this is all that Constitution is. And again look at other countries. What do you think is missing there?
So, she is bringing up good points, but where did we go wrong? The most I spend, the less you spend. If we were a little bit more caring, we would spend less, and eventually go up with inflation. Basically if we all understood that we drive the inflation either up or down with our spendings, we would spend less. Imagine how many more businesses regulations create? First, medicine was a safety thing, then if became its own industry. Say Food and Drug administration....Ever seen a condensed gallon of milk into a small candy? Good thing, these don't go through food and drug administration, or else they would never approve this. Too many calories, not safe to take.
OMG, imagine you come up with a new invention called a car, or a helicopter. At what point does the Government step into your invention or product? By doing so, do they teach these inventors to work with the Government and its standards. Can these regulations hinder the progress? Say, I came up with a new technology of watch. Government says, if after two years it stops working, I want you to refund the money. My watch costs one million dollar. Am I going to wait until I get too many complains about it not working? So, the Government safety standards can be measured by cars like Ferrari and Lamborghini that cost a lot. In America, the reputations don't matter as much. How do we do this? Say, we make enough money that if my car breaks after certain amount of time I either fix it or buy a new one. Basically prices are cheap enough to not worry about the company's reputation. Not only I save the dollar by doing so, but I also ruin the reputation of other cars that are of better value. So, one thing that's missing in America is putting the right values on things. As far as infrastructure, as long as they sell cars that satisfy Americans, the Government can delay the infrastructure, like Transportation or department of energy, or are they related?
So safe to drive. If it was customer driven, it would not be safe to drive. Think of roller blades and its wheels. Breaks are never too safe, so there have to be alternate ways to stop the car. If your wheels are sliding too fast, you can't use the emergency breaks safely. So car manufacturers primarily think of its customer's safety and care about them, or else your car could turn into a bomb. How about the engine? What do they test anyways? Customers cares for the car not to fall apart, the manufacturer cares about the safety. So can we use cars to come up with safety laws. Breaks are safety, Engine is, wheels are... basically every part is a safety thing. If so, can we automate that process to meet the state's requirements. Say someone tests the car on roadways, and not computers test it? Computers will make the job faster and perhaps more secure, but you still need a human eye, and can't fully trust computers for safety. Example, the NASA rocket explosion. Say robots are good at checking the density. 3d printers don't have density checks???Did they check Tesla cars safety? He looks too rich, so I assume the regulations of safety are not yet out for electric cars? Not to say that batteries do not go through safety checks, I think? Are the batteries the heart of the cars? How do you test the lifetime of the battery? So if one succeeds the rest succeed. What are the patents on batteries? Shall we all invest in battery research? Sure. And by doing so, we will get a better car and help the economy. Ever seen a human tester. Everything is in the eyes of the beholder....#cucumbers to rice ratio
man i cannot believe how he keeps his cool with 9 people barking at him
This episode has been my favorite... If only Milton could see how far the rabbit hole we have gone.
I wish these videos were more popular
ooh just had to reply to this comment! Milton would say people are free to choose what they want, although I agree that more people that knew about original and logical thought it would be beneficial to all of us. You could say RUclips algorithm doesn't help in some ways. What you could do like Milton would is persuade others to learn about this series! What a great 10 volume series to teach us about the last 150 years of economic history and what has worked and what has not. Have a nice day.
I would’ve loved to see Milton Friedman on Joe Rogan..
If Friedman were alive today, he'd have one of the most popular YT channels.
I doubt it. You overestimated the general public's intelligence.
@@paulwu1301 😂
Until they banned him for hate speech. 😒
I like the ending of these, where it’s just like. That’s enough for today 🤣
38:50 Lady, Mercedes Benz was way ahead of the curve in safety, innovation and technology and set the bar for implementing those engineering standards in today’s vehicles, all without government mandates in a free market. American cars at that time couldn’t hold a candle to their German counterparts.
The younger woman is wrong on a lot but she's sharp and bold. It made her an enjoyable counterpoint. The uptight librarian exemplifies the condescending woke liberal "we know better than the individual " thinking.
37:04 that clap tho
If Friedman could look at France today... he would laugh a lot.
A classic and tragic case of gish galloping. The debate format truly hasn't aged well, though Mr. Friedmans ideas will live on.
Ngl, I feel like both of the ladies were extremely rude and irritating. While Friedman had the patience to go over each point.
I personally wanted them out of the video. They were annoying.
The liberal women: “we’re sprinkling anti-tiger powder for your protection!”
Me: “but there are no tigers here.”
The liberal women: “exactly!”
The amount of regulations is astronmincal in todays world. No more free choice. One dumb example is requiring a mixing valve on all water heaters. ( a pet peeve for me.) Milton would get a heart attsck everyday in todays world.
Friedman was a better economic scientist than Keynes. To think I grew up a Keynesian smh 🤦♂️.
Keynes had a very pathological mind set. Inject money into the economy and take money out of it as required. Pure manipulation and the recipe for an artificial economy.
This Robert Crandal (Bookings Institute) talks like a lobbyst (which he really is!), how is he expecting someone to believe him? Some other people in the panel though not agreeing with Friedman seem really to believe in their cause, while Crandal thinks and acts like a politician. Very untrustworthy fellow.
38:06 She is stuck in crystallized intelligence built up around the rules she thinks ought or ought not to be followed, without thinking through why those rules exist in the first place and what makes a rule desirable to follow or not. SAD
8:29 Is this the basis for Gordon Gekko's "Greed is good"?
33:04 love that comment
When did the Government come up with safety laws? After analyzing the accident data? Does is sound intuitive enough? Does Government use intuition? Was this a roadway issue, traffic control or poor car testing issue? Unfortunately it is hard to say, until they come up with stricter laws. You know when you live in times, where your Government says, if you drink water, you are at your own risk? Speaking of safety. And now they have a new regulation where the water cannot have a lead? Like lead paint? #Clean air impact
So that data from customers and patients matters! There is only so many times we can rediscover things! Shall we come up with international norms to export our product, like food? Are we responsible for the people outside of America experiencing symptoms? We are responsible if someone gets food poisoning in US. You can always file a lawsuit. Basically, the logic says, if it is safe for me to eat, you should be able to export it! Ever compared US chicken with other countries organic chicken? The issue is, we want a better food! There is only so much one can delay on that. When do you know when things are really bad, is when Walnut sales are down and you end up with surplus. And so mental health matters! Exchanging walnuts with drugs? You know the thing added iodine into the salt and now we don't have to worry about food? #Oranges
Bookmark 18:20
28:59
Pipes don't filter? Basically add a filter, you will worry about the infrastructure later. And the opposite is true to. You don't have to change the whole thing to add a filter. So, separate states shall not wait until the Federal Government comes up with new safety law. Each state can have its own safety laws.
You do realize that all of the people calling the Consumer Product Safety Board are calling that agency AFTER a product on the market has performed in a less than safe way, right? Is it reasonable to think that these products would be safer WITHOUT standards set forth by the government? And what would be the course of redress otherwise? For every consumer to hire an attorney and seek relief under tort law? Ridiculous! Friedman says these regulations make bicycles more expensive and narrow selection. How much MORE expensive? A nickel? A dollar? Is it not worth a reasonable added cost to purchase a product that has had to meet some pre-determined safety standards? Would you feel safe putting your kid on such a bike? Would you rather have your kid on a safe bike or take your chances knowing you could always sue an unsafe manufacturer?
Friedman also says these safety regulations prevent more manufacturers from entering the market. Doesn’t that suggest that those prevented from entering the market would be companies that CAN’T/WON’T manufacture their products to prescribed safety standards? How is that a bad thing?
I'll answer your questions in order:
That's disputable.
Yes. Free market certifiers increasing the market value of the product for those who value safety would fill that void.
The main redress would be to leave negative reviews and ruin that company's reputation. Might not be satisfying for the consumer, but would greatly disincentive bad behaviour by the company. Ofc legal avenues would exist for major issues.
Probably a lot more than you think. Not only is government doing testing inefficiently on taxpayer money, but the delays hamper the business. And then there's often licencing costs and 'compliance fees' and other extortion by the regulator on the business.
Rest of questions in the paragraph: It's not the role of a 3rd party to make those value judgements on behalf of the consumer.
Few points on the 2nd paragraph:
1st: Prescribed standards limits innovation to within a strict boundary.
2nd: The standards act as a barrier to entry for a new manufacturers. Be aware that familiarising yourself with the standards and ensuring that your product meets them carries a considerable cost for a new entrant into a market. That's even assuming that the standards are genuine and aren't developed for the purpose of keeping out competition. This barrier exists even if the new product is completely safe.
3rd: It's a bad thing because it limits competition. This leads to higher prices and inferior products, including inferior safety.
4th: Why not have cheap, unsafe products? Those who value safety highly won't buy them, and people spending less on this product means they have more to spend on other things. Who other than the consumer should make the determination of what is more valuable? Indeed, why divorce safety from product quality?
IMO government regulators are bad because:
1. They have a tendency towards corruption. Look up the term 'political entrepreneur' (or 'rent seeker').
2. Their incentives aren't aligned with the consumers. This is addressed well in the video. They pursue self interest. Even assuming benevolence, how could they act in the consumer's interests when each consumer has different values?
3. They are horribly inefficient, like just about anything government does. Government projects are actually disincentivised from being efficient.
4. They often socialise the costs onto people who won't benefit. Why should a person who never rides bikes pay for bike safety regulation?
5. The regulators powers is often used by employees to enforce their own personal opinions, which are often not in the public interest. Think about what kind of person would go to work at a government regulator. It is certainly not a random selection of the population. The road to hell is very well paved with the good intentions of incompetent moral busy-bodies.
I agree with milton but take airbags in cars for example, what about taxis and family members? Shouldnt the government, as the only entity that has the data - can make a benefit-loss analysis , regard to the other passengers lives that are being taken because lack of airbags?
Landlord renting a house. Which houses are safe and which aren't? Is this something that Government should audit? Absolutely. If you live in a house where it fell apart, the landlord has to provide some liability, such as safe to reside inside the premises. Now imagine a carbon monoxide leak, water pipes that are old and unsafe, furnace that is too old and does not comply with New Government safety regulation, that requires you to use a furnace with filter. So now you have to change to furnace and with that renovate the place. Would the landlord repair things for the tenants or make sure that it is safe to rent, and take the liability? No! Speak from yourself only! #Chicago#New York#Sacrificium
I'm sure he's got his head "screwed" on...after all he was a monetarist !!!
I guess your children did not know his price? The price of the economist? #bees. Li Quant Yu was an example that if you want something to be done, do it yourself! Organization is everything and this is all that Constitution is. And again look at other countries. What do you think is missing there?
So, she is bringing up good points, but where did we go wrong? The most I spend, the less you spend. If we were a little bit more caring, we would spend less, and eventually go up with inflation. Basically if we all understood that we drive the inflation either up or down with our spendings, we would spend less. Imagine how many more businesses regulations create? First, medicine was a safety thing, then if became its own industry. Say Food and Drug administration....Ever seen a condensed gallon of milk into a small candy? Good thing, these don't go through food and drug administration, or else they would never approve this. Too many calories, not safe to take.
OMG, imagine you come up with a new invention called a car, or a helicopter. At what point does the Government step into your invention or product? By doing so, do they teach these inventors to work with the Government and its standards. Can these regulations hinder the progress? Say, I came up with a new technology of watch. Government says, if after two years it stops working, I want you to refund the money. My watch costs one million dollar. Am I going to wait until I get too many complains about it not working? So, the Government safety standards can be measured by cars like Ferrari and Lamborghini that cost a lot. In America, the reputations don't matter as much. How do we do this? Say, we make enough money that if my car breaks after certain amount of time I either fix it or buy a new one. Basically prices are cheap enough to not worry about the company's reputation. Not only I save the dollar by doing so, but I also ruin the reputation of other cars that are of better value. So, one thing that's missing in America is putting the right values on things. As far as infrastructure, as long as they sell cars that satisfy Americans, the Government can delay the infrastructure, like Transportation or department of energy, or are they related?
So safe to drive. If it was customer driven, it would not be safe to drive. Think of roller blades and its wheels. Breaks are never too safe, so there have to be alternate ways to stop the car. If your wheels are sliding too fast, you can't use the emergency breaks safely. So car manufacturers primarily think of its customer's safety and care about them, or else your car could turn into a bomb. How about the engine? What do they test anyways? Customers cares for the car not to fall apart, the manufacturer cares about the safety. So can we use cars to come up with safety laws. Breaks are safety, Engine is, wheels are... basically every part is a safety thing. If so, can we automate that process to meet the state's requirements. Say someone tests the car on roadways, and not computers test it? Computers will make the job faster and perhaps more secure, but you still need a human eye, and can't fully trust computers for safety. Example, the NASA rocket explosion. Say robots are good at checking the density. 3d printers don't have density checks???Did they check Tesla cars safety? He looks too rich, so I assume the regulations of safety are not yet out for electric cars? Not to say that batteries do not go through safety checks, I think? Are the batteries the heart of the cars? How do you test the lifetime of the battery? So if one succeeds the rest succeed. What are the patents on batteries? Shall we all invest in battery research? Sure. And by doing so, we will get a better car and help the economy. Ever seen a human tester. Everything is in the eyes of the beholder....#cucumbers to rice ratio
Abraham Lincoln has reached perfection in everything except his face? Well, exceptions do apply! Poverty is certainly not one of them, LOLZ.